John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR- 328A Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Wildfire: Stakeholder Perspectives on Budgetary Impacts and Threats to Natural Resources on Federal, State and Private Lands.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 5, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Agency Progress in Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished majority leader whether he finds it ironic--and perhaps he has a better word than ``ironic'' to describe the situation we find ourselves in--that three separate times the Democrats have filibustered the funding that provides the resources to our troops to fight our Nation's battles and keep us safe, but then a few short days before Veterans Day, they decide to allow us to finally get on a veterans and military construction bill. I would hope it is not because they had second thoughts about going home on Wednesday and giving patriotic speeches about their support for our troops and military but then realizing what a spot they have put themselves in. I wonder if the majority leader shares my view that that is at least ironic, and perhaps ``cynical'' would be a more appropriate description.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one additional question?

Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I ask the distinguished majority leader if it is still true that in order to accomplish this delusional scheme that our friends across the aisle have somehow dreamed up as a way to block this funding for our troops, even if that were true--which it is not, as you have pointed out--isn't it still true for an appropriations bill to become law it requires the signature of the President of the United States? So it would literally be impossible to do what they have dreamed up in their delusional state when they are accusing us of this sort of a scheme and plan, which is absolutely false.

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would ask the majority leader, having been through what we have been through here in just this last week in establishing spending caps for this year and next in this bipartisan and bicameral Budget Act, if he can think of any possible rationale for the Democrats filibustering the Defense appropriations bill, when, in fact, those spending caps are subject to a law which the President has now signed into law, and which were the subject of this bipartisan, bicameral agreement that passed just last week.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, 2 weeks ago, the Senate was unable to proceed to consider a very important piece of legislation called the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. The goal of this legislation is to protect our communities from criminals who violate our laws and who pose a danger to those communities--often minority communities themselves. The aim of this legislation is to restore law and order across the country by holding those accountable who are defying Federal law and refusing to cooperate with the Federal Government when it comes to communicating the status of people who are illegally present in the country who have committed other more serious crimes and refusing to honor Federal detainers. As we discussed the need for this bill, several of my colleagues highlighted the importance of this issue, but unfortunately, we lost that vote because only 54 Senators voted to proceed to the bill and obviously we needed 60 votes. I am concerned that this debate does not focus on the people harmed the most because of the status quo, and that is why I have come here to the floor to talk about the larger problem of violent crime committed by those who are here illegally and are not being punished according to our laws. I also want to highlight the importance of the victims and families across the country who are suffering because we have not taken the appropriate action to stop these criminals. There is one person in particular whom I wish to talk about today. My plan is to come to the floor and tell these stories one at a time over the next few weeks. This is Javier Vega, Jr., who grew up in La Feria, a small town of about 7,000 people in South Texas. Javier was known by the name Harvey to his friends, interestingly enough, and he spent his entire life thinking of ways to help others before himself. From a young age, he knew he wanted to serve in the military, and so he volunteered for the Marine Corps and embarked on a military career after graduating from La Feria High School. Harvey thrived in the Marine Corps. So after leaving the Marines and working day and night to put himself through college, he decided the next step in his public service was to join the U.S. Border Patrol. Harvey's mother said that he approached his work at the Border Patrol just like everything else he pursued in life--with diligence, dedication to hard work, and trying just simply to be the best he could be. He was proud to help protect his fellow neighbors and serve our country, and he worked tirelessly to do so. But, tragically, Harvey's service to his country was cut short. Last summer he was out at one of his favorite fishing spots with his family. He loved fishing. It was a family tradition, and Harvey wanted to pass along his love for this pastime to his sons. Shortly after he and his family members cast their lines into the water on that Sunday afternoon, he was ambushed by two men who tried to rob him, and, heartbreakingly, the encounter turned violent. Harvey's lifelong commitment to protecting those around him-- something he seemed born to do--kicked in instantly. As Harvey and his father, and eventually his mother, tried to fend off the attackers, tragically Javier ``Harvey'' Vega, Jr., was killed. His father, Javier senior, was shot in the hip and still suffers from the wounds inflicted that afternoon. This was supposed to be another normal weekend fishing with the family. But instead, this normal weekend--or what was supposed to be a normal weekend of fishing for Javier and his family--turned deadly. Who were the killers? They were two illegal immigrant criminals who had repeatedly violated our laws, and by that I don't mean they just entered the country without the appropriate visa. Both had been deported multiple times but managed to repeatedly find their way back into the country, even after committing a long list of crimes. In fact, according to some witnesses, these two men had been terrorizing the community for months, committing armed robberies and carjackings, and, clearly, they were capable of attacking and killing a hard-working father on a fishing trip with his family. This is a difficult topic for some because some people would like to mischaracterize what we are trying to do with this legislation as somehow being anti-immigrant. But indeed, legal immigrants and people who live in the communities along South Texas--many of them have had family members come here from Mexico and elsewhere over the years-- recognize how much people who illegally enter the country and commit multiple crimes can terrorize communities and victimize the very people whom those who block this legislation say they want to protect. I don't raise this issue or this story lightly, but the country should know that for the family of Javier Vega, Jr., this is their reality. Illegal immigrant criminals who were deported multiple times attacked them and killed their son--their father, their brother, and their friend. Their lives will never be the same. A number of our colleagues voted to block our ability to even consider this important legislation that seeks to merely enforce existing Federal law and to defund those jurisdictions that defy Federal law, and this is the consequence of doing nothing--people like Javier Vega, Jr., being victimized by criminals who violate our laws over and over and over, and when we catch them and they are deported, they simply come back into the country and victimize more people and more communities and kill people like Javier Vega, Jr. The lives of the Vega family will never be the same, and I know they don't want other families in Texas or elsewhere around the country to have to suffer like they have suffered. It doesn't seem like a lot to ask--that our Federal laws be enforced to protect our communities from criminals. That is all the legislation attempted to do. Yet there was a concerted effort across the aisle to filibuster the bill and prevent us from even considering this legislation, along with any suggestions our colleagues might have for improving it. The goal of the bill, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, is not to keep legal immigrants from entering the United States or to disparage law-abiding immigrants. Even the victim's mother, Marie, someone with justifiable, personal anger, noted that this tragedy does not mean that her family is against immigration--far from it. This legislation is narrowly targeted to address the root cause of the tragedies like the one I have been talking about, by targeting criminal illegal immigrants who repeatedly ignored the rule of law and who live with virtual impunity in our country and victimize people like the Vega family. We can't, in good faith, address immigration reform until the American people see us doing more to enforce our existing laws. I have been here for a while, and I have heard the arguments across the aisle that our colleagues would say: Well, the only thing we need to do to fix problems like what the Vega family experienced and otherwise is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. But the American people simply don't have enough confidence in us if we are unwilling to take the necessary steps to see that the laws on the books are already enforced--the very laws that would protect people like Javier Vega, Jr., and his family. We have a lot of work to do to regain the public's confidence, because we can do other things that I believe we need to do to fix our broken immigration system. It is imperative, it is our responsibility, and it is something we referred to in our oath--that we will uphold and defend the laws and the Constitution of the United States. It is our responsibility to make sure that local governments comply with Federal laws and do not prevent the Department of Homeland Security from doing its job in enforcing them. America's law enforcement community, including heroes like Harvey, put their lives on the line every day to protect our citizens. They work tirelessly to try to protect our safety. I hope our colleagues will come to their senses and stand up for those who provide for our public safety and not contribute to a situation where other families, such as the Vega family, will lose a loved one to the sort of career criminals whom I was referring to earlier who killed Javier Vega, Jr. I have recently joined with Congressman Filemon Vela to send a letter to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection requesting that they reclassify the death of Javier Vega, Jr., as a line-of-duty fatality. Everybody in law enforcement knows that you are never truly off duty, and Javier's brave actions that fateful day back in 2014 should be classified as a death occurring in the line of duty, just like every other law enforcement officer. I look forward to hearing back from the Commissioner on this soon. I am thankful to Paul Perez, president of the National Border Patrol Council in Kingsville, and to the Rio Grande Valley Union of the National Border Patrol Council for helping the Vega family highlight this issue. We have a duty to help our brave men and women in law enforcement do their job by passing this legislation and to regain some of the lost confidence the American people used to have in our ability to actually do our job and to keep illegal immigrant criminals and repeat offenders off our streets. This issue is not going away. There are countless other stories in Texas and across the country, such as the story of Kate Steinle, out in San Francisco, who tragically was murdered by the same sort of repeat illegal immigrant criminal who killed Harvey Vega. There are a lot more stories to tell--a lot more stories that I hope we will tell in the coming days. It is our duty as Members of Congress to put a stop to this, and I pledge to keep fighting on behalf of the Vega family for legislation that will do just that. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, about a month ago the White House announced that it has reached a deal with 11 other countries along the Pacific Rim--known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is a major trade agreement that followed on the approval of trade promotion authority by the Congress. As we might expect, President Obama has been quick to tout his credentials as a pro-trade President, and I think so far, so good. In fact, though, you might say he is so pro-trade that he has significantly not only sought to open up the U.S. economy but also the Iranian economy, releasing billions of dollars to a hostile regime by negotiating a deal to ease sanctions against them and potentially releasing as much as 1 million barrels of crude oil by Iran onto the world markets. I think it has been well documented that I oppose that deal. I do find the President's position is perplexing at minimum or hypocritical at worst. It is hypocritical that despite his self- proclaimed pro-trade stance, he refuses to do something that should be a no-brainer when it comes to any proponent of free trade: opening up foreign markets to the things we make and produce here, like lifting the antiquated ban on exporting crude oil. By refusing to revise this outdated policy, the President continues to contribute to the flatline of our economy and to deny our potential as an energy powerhouse. And, I might add, at the same time, by not acting to lift this export ban, the President continues to deny our allies the energy they need for their economic security and to improve their national security. Next month will mark 40 years since the United States put into place a ban on the export of crude oil. For those who might not be familiar with the history, let me offer a little bit of background. The crude oil export ban was put in place decades ago as a precaution to protect the United States from disruptions to global supply of oil in the 1970s, at a time when we were importing the majority of the oil and gas that we consumed here in the United States. But, fortunately, the world looks a lot different than it did back in the 1970s. For example, in 1970, world production was roughly 48 million barrels of oil a day. In 2015 that number has doubled to 100 million barrels of oil a day, and the United States alone is producing about 9.4 million barrels of oil a day. As recently as 2008, 76 percent of Americans believed that the world was somehow running out of oil. Thanks to the remarkable shale revolution, we have come a long way in helping the geopolitical energy landscape turn in our favor here in the United States and have reduced our dependency on imported energy from other parts of the country. I should mention that it is because of the commonsense policies of States such as Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Dakota that we have been able to take advantage of the incredible new technology in this field that goes along with horizontal drilling and fracking to produce a supply of oil and gas that we never would have dreamed of a few short years ago. These developments have been nothing short of revolutionary. We have recently seen an uptick in oil imports in the United States, primarily because overseas energy producers are discounting their crude to be able to take advantage of the U.S. market. The downward trend for the past several years of imports of oil showed that the United States is importing less than it historically has. Why? Because we are producing more here, so we are less reliant. I think most people would think that would be a good thing. Our country doesn't need to bar our domestically produced energy from reaching the global market. We should do away with this antiquated policy and, in so doing, help kick start the U.S. economy in the process. First, let me talk about what this would do to help our economy. Lifting the ban would mean real job creation right here in this country. These are not minimum wage jobs. These are well-paying jobs. It is easy to think that lifting the ban would only provide a limited benefit to those who work in the domestic energy sector, but that is actually not the case. Domestic energy production involves many different sectors, from construction to shipping to technology companies. By allowing our country to export more crude, the United States has the potential to create many, many jobs here in the United States at a time when we need more jobs--not only in the domestic energy sector but deep in the supply chain as well. One study estimated that for every new production job, it translates into three additional jobs in the supply chain and another six in the broader economy. It is estimated that in my home State of Texas alone, more than 40,000 jobs could be created in the coming years simply by lifting the ban and making available to producers the global benchmark price known as the Brent price. Several studies have suggested that hundreds of thousands of jobs in multiple sectors throughout the country could be created in the coming years if the crude export ban is lifted. By the way, I should mention this--because this is probably on everybody's mind: What is this going to do to the price of gasoline? Study after study has documented that gasoline prices are going to remain either where they are now or go lower should the ban be lifted. By the way, the Energy Secretary of the Obama administration, Dr. Moniz, agrees with that. It is plain old supply and demand, if you think about it. Lifting the crude oil ban export would strengthen our economy and could actually save Americans money at the pump. But doing away with this outdated, protectionist policy also gives us the opportunity to promote stronger relationships with our friends and allies around the world. For example, our NATO allies and other nations in Europe rightly question why the United States doesn't lift this ban, which would help them achieve a source of energy that they need, instead of having to depend on countries such as Russia that use it as an instrument of coercion and intimidation. Today, many of our allies in Europe rely not only on Russia but on Iran for their energy needs. Wouldn't it be so much better if we were able to enter into contracts to sell our energy to our friends and allies to help prop them up and provide them another source of energy, rather than leave them dependent on countries such as Russia that want to use it as an instrument of intimidation. Because of these countries' dependence on our adversaries for their basic needs such as heating, electricity, and fuel, this represents a real vulnerability, not just for them but for us as well because we are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As our world becomes more interconnected, we need to take a more long-term strategic view. That means considering the implications of our energy policies for our own national security. By lifting this ban, the United States can offer to help our friends diversify their energy supplies and enhance their energy security and help reduce the revenue that these rogue states take in for nefarious purposes--such as Iran, the No. 1 sponsor of state terrorism. Lifting the crude oil ban represents a rare opportunity to do two things vital for our country: to strengthen our economy and to promote a safer, more stable world for our allies and partners and ultimately for us. Last month, in a strong bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives voted to overturn this ban. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Unfortunately, the White House has already sent a signal that were we to pass such a bill to lift the ban, the President might decide to veto this pro-trade legislation. I wish to point out to the White House and to anybody else who is listening that time and again the President has relied on Republicans in this Chamber to advance his pro- trade agenda. The reason we have done it is because we agree that a pro-trade agenda is good for our economy and good for our security. Soon we will have an opportunity to read the full text of the Trans- Pacific Partnership Agreement that I mentioned earlier. Pro-trade Republicans in this Chamber, myself included, have voted to equip Congress with a powerful mechanism with which to consider trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement or trade promotion authority. Trade promotion authority, or TPA, which passed with strong Republican support and only 13 Democratic votes in the Senate, does not guarantee that the President's agreement will pass this Senate or this Congress--far from it. I am going to use all of the tools that we have provided for in the trade promotion authority legislation to make sure this proposed deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, gets the kind of careful scrutiny it deserves. We know the President, with not much time left in his administration, is looking for a legacy accomplishment. But this President's inconsistency with respect to free trade gives me great pause. I have to say that he can't take my support for granted or, I believe, the support of others in this Chamber for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, particularly if he acts so inconsistently on other free trade measures such as lifting the crude oil export ban. Moving forward, I hope the President will learn to work with those of us in Congress who have traditionally supported free trade in every respect. If he were truly the pro-trade President he claims to be, his administration would prioritize lifting the crude oil export ban with the same ferocity with which it supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to congratulate our friend and colleague, the Senator from Iowa, on this strong vote on the motion to proceed to this congressional resolution of disapproval of this overreaching regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. I want to talk a little bit about this rule, but I also want to talk about how symptomatic this is of the overreach we are seeing coming from the executive branch, particularly when it involves rulemaking. This rule is a response to a Supreme Court decision and a number of other decisions by the lower courts which held previously that the Federal Government had overreached when it comes to trying to regulate so-called navigable waters of the United States. I think there is no real question in anybody's mind that under the interstate commerce provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government has a responsibility when it comes to navigable waters, but, as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in a decision it handed down on October 9, the plaintiffs in the case against the Environmental Protection Agency and this particular rule established a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims where they said that the rule's treatment of tributaries, adjacent waters, and waters having a significant nexus to navigable waters is at odds with the Supreme Court's decision in the Rapanos case, which was handed down in 2006. It said also that the provisions of the rule make it unclear as to the distance limitations, whether it is harmonious with the decisions of the Supreme Court. So, for example, if you could say the tributary that feeds another body of water that feeds another body of water that then feeds another body of water that eventually gets into navigable water is subject to the rulemaking authority of the Environmental Protection Agency is in conflict with the decision in the Rapanos case, and I don't believe it would ever withstand constitutional scrutiny. Moreover, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said the rulemaking process by which the so-called distance limitations were adopted is suspect. They said it did not include any proposed distance limitation in use of the terms such as ``adjacent waters'' or ``significant nexus.'' So under the opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, a body of water could be far removed from that navigable water and still be determined as an adjacent water or have a significant nexus and be subject to the far-reaching provisions of the rule. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also said that there was no scientific support for the distance limitations that were included in the final rule. The plaintiffs contended and the Sixth Circuit agreed that this rule is not the product of reasoned decisionmaking and is vulnerable to attack as impermissibly arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Ordinarily, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said, they would not issue a stay pending the resolution of the challenge to the rule, but they said the sheer breadth of the ripple effect caused by the rule's definitional changes counsel strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being. They also noted that the rule had already been stayed in 13 different States where previous litigation had been filed and decided. So, as a result, on October 9, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide stay for the very rule that is the subject of this Congressional Review Act vote that we just had and that we will have after 10 hours of debate. But beyond the arcane provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and what is navigable water and what is adjacent water, what has a sufficient nexus and the like, I think what we need to recognize is that this rule represents the single largest private property grab perhaps in American history because it claims as Federal jurisdiction private property that previously had not been thought of as having any nexus or connection with Federal authority or even interstate commerce--potholes, drainage ditches, culverts, stock ponds, things such as that that are arguably now within the ambit of this rule, and that cannot be the case. That is why so many of us have heard not just from our farmers, cattle raisers, and agriculture producers, but we have heard from people in the construction business, people who are concerned about this private property grab, and they said this cannot be the case. As I said, farmers and ranchers, homebuilders, manufacturers, utilities, the concrete industry--any entity that builds or develops on real estate will likely be impacted. I am very happy that under the leadership of the Senator from Iowa, we have gotten this far on this congressional resolution of disapproval, and I hope that after this debate--perhaps tomorrow--we will be in a position to send this to the President of the United States stating views of the U.S. Senate and Congress that this rule simply is too broad and cannot stand. The Sixth Circuit Court's opinion is not a substitute for what we do under the Congressional Review Act. It is part of our responsibility as Members of the U.S. Congress. In my State, as, I am sure, in other places around the country, farming and ranching is more than a job. It is a way of life. It is part of our culture and very definitely a family affair. In fact, about 98 percent of all farms and ranches in Texas are family-owned. When I am back home and have the chance to visit with those who provide the food and the fiber to feed and clothe us, they are very concerned about this legislation--as they should be--because it not only represents a threat to their way of life and their ability to provide for their families and for our States and our country, it is a power grab unprecedented in U.S. history. In May, the Environmental Protection Agency released the final rule that is supposed to protect our water. Who could be opposed to that? Well, nobody if they had done it within the Constitution and within the law. That sounds innocuous enough. But in reality, it acts as a Federal land grab, one which would add significant costs to our farmers and ranchers and which has the potential to greatly intrude on the private property of landowners. While we all can agree that clean water is a priority, the Obama administration has overstepped that goal and pitted the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers against the hard-working farmers and ranchers in Texas and across the country. But it is not just the agriculture sector, as I mentioned a moment ago. I have been hearing from a lot of stakeholders back home who are incredibly concerned about the negative potential impact this rule will have on their business. This rule is such a vast expansion of Federal jurisdiction that multiple sectors of our economy could be adversely affected--as I said, homebuilders, the oil and gas industry, mining companies, and manufacturers. This rule is not just some simple, straightforward provision to protect water; it is a veiled threat against the private sector and a blueprint for stifling economic growth in our country. In 2014 the economy in my State grew roughly 5.2 percent. We were among the most fortunate States in the Nation to see a lot of job growth and opportunity. That is why people are moving to Texas--because that is where the jobs are. Conversely, in 2014 we saw across the country our economy grow at roughly 2.2 percent. While we have been encouraged to see the unemployment rate tick down little by little, the truth is that when you start getting into the numbers, you realize that the labor participation rate--the percentage of people actually actively looking for work--is at a 30-year low, thus making that lower unemployment rate look better than it really is. This is an important piece of legislation, and I know a lot of people are paying attention to it back home and across the country because of its impact. I am frustrated we weren't able to move the earlier legislation forward due to a filibuster by the minority, in this case, who are clearly trying to do everything they can to protect this administration and its overreach, but of course all of us are going to be held accountable at the ballot box, as we should be. Anyone who has voted against proceeding with this commonsense legislation to rein in an out-of-control Federal agency, I believe, will live to regret that decision. Congratulating Senator Grassley On casting His 12,000th Vote Madam President, I just have one other thing to say on a different topic. It has sort of been the quiet after we celebrated the 15,000th vote by the Senator from Vermont very publicly the other day. Our more reticent, and perhaps even occasionally shy, Mr. Chuck Grassley, the senior Senator from Iowa, celebrated his 12,000th vote in the Senate. Senator Grassley is well known for his consistency and steadfast commitment to the people of Iowa. I have to say, I don't know of any Senator who works harder to get and to keep the trust and confidence of the people he represents. This 12,000th vote should come as no surprise. He actually hasn't even missed a vote since 1993. Every year for more than 30 years, Senator Grassley has demonstrated his commitment to the people of Iowa by visiting every one of the State's 99 counties. I know he keeps his colleague, the junior Senator from Iowa, Mrs. Ernst, running just trying to keep up with him. That is an impressive record for anyone, and one that many--including our Presidential candidates--sometimes need to try to duplicate. I will speak, for just a second, beyond statistics about Senator Grassley because I have the honor of serving with him on both the Finance and Judiciary Committees. He has worked tirelessly, not just for the people of Iowa but for all Americans. Indeed, my colleague shares my concern for creating a more open and transparent government. As somebody who is conservative by ideology and by nature, I was not sent by my constituents in Texas to pass more rules and regulations. I am here to hold the government, and particularly the bureaucracy, accountable. One way we can do that, without adding additional regulations, rules, and costs to the taxpayer, is by encouraging an open and more transparent government because with that comes accountability. Senator Grassley has used his role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to advance these values and to hold government and the bureaucracy accountable for the benefit of not just Iowans but for the benefit of the American people. I thank the Senator from Iowa for the great example he sets for the rest of us and applaud him for casting his 12,000th vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the House message, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion to concur in the House message to accompany H.R. 1314.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the majority leader and to the chairman of the agriculture committee in the Senate, as well as to the two Senators from South Dakota, Mr. Thune and Mr. Rounds, for their cooperation and their commitment to address this issue. I particularly wish to join the chairman of the agriculture committee, Senator Roberts, in commending Mike Conaway, a good Texan, who is chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, whom I know cares very deeply about this issue. Texas is a huge agricultural State and 98 percent of our agricultural production is run by families and employs one out of every seven Texans. Texas ranchers and farmers are no strangers to the perils caused by drought and other weather-related events beyond their control. With the current regulatory environment and unforeseen perils they face, I understand the necessity and the viability of the crop insurance program to their livelihoods. So I wish to say that I too stand ready to support our colleagues, working together to find a solution to this important problem. I yield the floor.